AN EXPLORATORY RESEARCH: ELT AND ELL STUDENTS’ TENDENCIES TOWARDS WEB 2.0 TOOLS

: The research aims to reveal ELT and ELL students’ tendencies towards the application of Web 2.0 tools in language learning process and to reveal whether the department and gender had a significant effect on the attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools for academic purposes. The research also investigated the sorts of Web 2.0 tools ELT and ELL learners use for academic purposes. The participants were 94 students from English Language Teaching (ELT) and English Language and Literature (ELL) departments at Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University. The overall results of the research have shown that majority of learners use Web 2.0 tools to enhance vocabulary, listening comprehension, reading, speaking skills and finally their writing skills. The findings also illustrate that participants are conscious of the existence of these tools and they generally have a positive tendency towards the implementation of these tools in their language learning process. Furthermore, social networking sites were the most favored tools by students for academic purposes.

. They are considered to be workaholic and are motivated to learn more. Generation Y is a step closer to the term "digital natives". They are more self-oriented, work-shy and spoilt. Generation Z on the other hand is completely different with their choice of living in digital world. They born between 1995 and 2010 and they are not in need of the relationship in real life as they indulge with the limitless opportunities in digital world. Their attention span is very limited (Cilliers, 2017). They don't want to spend their time in anything if the task does not have any relationship with digital items or world (Mosca & Quaranta, 2019). Therefore, it can be said that computer and its rapid integration in education was inevitable (Levy, 1997). At first step computers are used in language learning and teaching (Yazıcı & Uçar, 2017), then Web technology emerged and Web tools are applied in language education (Levy, 1997;Levy & Stockwell, 2013;Sur & Yazıcı, 2017). After the first wave of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 has been the major element in learning and teaching because it lets the user the easiness in communication, interaction, creating and sharing the content (Aşıksoy, 2018).
Web 2.0 tools makes learner to study in collaborative multimedia environments (Skyes & Thorne, 2008). Wikis, blogs, YouTube and all related items of Web tools provide a chance to self-expression and they also customize the learning-teaching process by covering the real world as in ubiquitous learning environments (Yazıcı, 2017). Web 2.0 tools is the ultimate source for not only students but teachers as well. It is not hard to reach and formulate custom-made input, exercise and assessment materials even you can get interaction with different experts at different subjects (Skyes & Thorne, 2008). Stevenson & Liu (2010) examined the purposes of Web 2.0 tools in language learning activities and they found that the users generally tend to choose according to the content, quality and the skills they need to master. They are willing to allocate more time and effort on language learning which has been a key element for learning. Making the learner more motivated (Stevenson & Liu, 2010) is one of the advantages of Web 2.0 tools. Some other advantages studied in the literature of Web 2.0 tools are as follows: • Suggesting different environments and methods to learn more in the target setting (Balbay & Erkan, 2018). • These tools increase the interaction, communication and motivation of the learners and effective on learning language skills in authentic environments (Gambo & Shakir, 2019). • The Web 2.0 tools create environments which are more comfortable and personfocused. Having such an environment develop the self-efficacy of the learners when compared to traditional settings (Wang & Vasquez, 2012). • Having chances to hear and attend authentic language settings, real-life like experiences, making the learning enjoyable are also listed under the benefits of Web 2.0 tools (Cephe & Balçıkanlı, 2012). • It presents the chance of being global even if you are a rural teacher/student. You can share any material at any time with the people in anywhere in the world (Aşıksoy, 2018). • Because of their real-life applications you can adapt the learning process in reallife context and have a continuous learning process (Yazıcı, 2017).
• They can also support classroom when implemented effectively by scaffolding the pedagogical language development (Yuen et al., 2011). • Web 2.0 tools manage active contribution of the learners. Learners produce language by blogs, wikis and videos. -It can be said that Web 2.0 makes learning a process-oriented effort (Ebner et al., 2010). Although these many benefits of Web 2.0 tools there are also some challenges and disadvantages of implementation of Web 2.0 tools. The studies in the literature mention of these as follows: • The first and common challenge is to have the required equipment to use the Web 2.0 tools (Yunus et al., 2012). • Having internet is not enough, the second disadvantage is to allocate a huge time on developing the effective tools and the required internet connection while using these tools (Kayar, 2019). • Although Web 2.0 tools present custom-made materials for any step of language education, it is not a panacea. There is still a need of human interaction and effort to guide and conduct (Palli, 2020). The studies show that there are pros and cons of Web 2.0 tools but the majority of them are focused on the implementation of Kahoot (Putri, 2019); blogs (Bener & Yıldız;Sarıçoban & Kurum, 2011); YouTube (Selevičienė & Burkšaitienė, 2015) and wikihows (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2015) in language. The attitudes of the learners from both of ELT and ELL, and the academic purposes of the Web 2.0 tools are neglected. The present research sets out to reveal the attitudes of the first-hand users of Web 2.0 tools from their points of views along with their academic preferences in using these tools. While Web 1.0 is common in literature, the new emerging technology of Web 2.0 tools need to be studied (Aşıksoy, 2018). This research will contribute to have a better comprehension of Web 2.0 tools and the perspectives of ELT/ELL learners. Therefore, the study offers the research questions as follows: 1. What are the attitudes of students at the department of ELT and ELL towards Web 2.0 tools in language learning? 2. Is there any significant relationship between ELT and ELL departments in terms of the usage of Web 2.0 tools in language learning? 3. What kind of Web 2.0 technologies do ELT and ELL students use for academic purposes?

Literature Review
At the beginning of 2000s, there was read-only Web and people can read the information but they can neither contribute nor create a content on Web tools. Only a decade later, a new technology emerged which enabling not only interaction but also sharing and creating new contents in online environments. Then it is called the second phase of Web technologies that is Web 2.0, second generation of Web-based services. By means of Web 2.0 users can create, collaborate and share any material they created on online settings with users (Çeçen, 2020). Web 2.0 platforms generally are grouped under three major categories. The most known ones, such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn generally serve for communities and people can interact with each other in these platforms. YouTube, Dailymotion, Dropbox, Digg and Delicious are some the platforms composes of the second category letting the users to share and organize online contents. The last one is the platforms that helps users to create contents, edit the websites and interact in forums, such as Wiki, Blogger and WordPress (Çeçen, 2020). These new features of Web 2.0 have revolutionized the way we look, see and feel along with many others. The effect of Web 2.0 has been huge on every filed that is related to human and especially education (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2015). After computers and Computer Assisted Learning (CALL) was implemented into language classes (Yazıcı & Uçar, 2017), the new Web tools have entered and adapted rapidly by learners and teachers from instruction to assessment. Even in COVID-19 has increased this tendency to use Web 2.0 tools (Başal & Eryılmaz, 2021) and its technology. At this point Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has come forward which is also the core of this research study. TAM is depended on Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). Davis suggested the TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1977) in 1989 to conduct study in social psychology, and it is still extensively used by scholars in a variety of disciplines. There are two main elements identified in the model. These are perceived usefulness and ease of use. After this first definition Arshad et al. (2012). Modified the model as it is in Figure 1. they add up four more elements to the model in its final version. These are; awareness, attitude, behavioral pattern and actual system use.

Figure 1: TAM
Awareness is identified as the level to which learners are conscious of the application of Web 2.0 technologies in order to learn a foreign language. Perceived usefulness is the learners' belief about the degree which the implementation of a certain Web 2.0 tool could augment their foreign language learning. Perceived ease of use is identified as the learners' belief about the degree to which they use a specific Web 2.0 tool without any effort. The level to which students favor a particular Web 2.0 tools for learning English is defined as attitude. Students' continuing tendency to perform language-learning tasks by implementing these technologies is identified as Behavioral intention. The frequency of a specific Web 2 tool implemented by students in a English language learning setting is used to illustrate Actual System Utilization. Because of its focus on meta-cognitive process and actual outcome of the Web 2.0 tool use intention TAM was selected in this research. It is also used in defining university students' attitudes on Web 2.0 tools. Selevičienė & Burkšaitienė (2015) examined the attitude of university students towards Web 2.0 tools. They conducted a quantitative study and found that the learners` attitude has positive relationship with awareness. Most of the participants prefer to use Web 2.0 tools to connect with their peers and to get information they need rather than to learn a subject.
Çeçen (2020) also conducted a similar research on 90 EFL learners in Turkey and the results showed that if the level of the student is low then they prefer Web 2.0 tool more in order to learn individually or collaboratively. The researcher also found that taking learners` opinions and suggestions into account while implementing Web 2.0 tools provides a positive attitude towards Web 2.0. a similar study by Aşıksoy (2018) aimed to investigate the ELT learners `attitude towards Web 2.0 while learner improving their language skills. She conducted a survey design and descriptive study on 207 ELT students. She applied an attitude questionnaire to the students and results showed that the participant learners have generally positive attitude towards Web 2.0 tools and they are aware of the implementation of these tools into learning environments. The participants also believe that using Web 2.0 tools enrich their learning and they become better in English. They named Web 2.0 tools as the best tool in their learning journey.
Having its own structure and environment in learning settings Web 2.0 tools are highly preferred by many teachers and students (Mohr & Mohr, 2017). Palli (2020) study the utilization of Web 2.0 tools in EFL settings. The study was conducted on Greek secondary school teachers and carried both qualitative and quantitative design. The results showed that when implemented into process their language skills have been developed and they believe that Web 2.0 tools play a vital role in their process of dealing with language. The benefits of Web 2.0 tools are investigated by Gambo & Shakir (2019) also. Their study showed that among many of the benefits, being effortless in reaching to the required information, the convenience and comfort of having personalized content are the major ones. Wang & Vasquez (2012) support this finding on language settings especially. They examined the theory behind the Web 2.0 tools. Starting from the CALL at language settings (Yazıcı & Uçar, 2017), they analyzed all the development of Web tools to the Web 2.0 tools. They found that, Web 2.0 tools foster the language learning, help learners to follow the current media elements and agenda at any topic they are interested in. While helping them to get this information, Web 2.0 tool develop their selfefficacy and awareness on the target subject on the other hand.
All of the studies mentioned above are about the content, application and advantages of implanting Web 2.0 tools. Cephe & Balçıkanlı (2012) on the other hand, looked from a different perspective and examine the ideas of future teachers on Web 2.0 tools. They introduced Web technologies to 139 students, soon become to be ELT teachers, and they also gave a detailed instruction on how to use these web technologies for 3 months. After these, they asked a deeper thought on the subject and found that the students have some draw-backs because they consider using these technologies requires high-tech equipment along with the efficacy to use Web technologies. Students believe that Web 2.0 tools provide them authentic materials and arise interest in students. Another perspective on Web 2.0 tools was provided by Balbay & Erkan (2018). They investigated the Web 2.0 tools implementation on English academic courses. They conducted a pre-post design study on ELT instructors` perspectives. The results revealed that before training the majority of participants did not prefer Web 2.0 tools, no previous information on implementation of Web 2.0 tools and no belief in its effectiveness even if they had the general idea. After the intense the education on the Web.20 tools, these ideas changed. They volunteered to apply Web 2.0 tools, explored their ways of applying into classes and were more motivated on exploring and using.
All of these studies are mostly on teachers or reflecting their perspective, there is still a need to explore the learners` perspectives. Before the intention to affect, change or intervene to the Web 2.0 tools, it is necessary to know the current situation and attitudes of the students. Our study means to explore the current situation and define the learners' aim of Web 2.0 tools usage.

Method
The present study was conducted using survey research design; a Likert scale questionnaire to compile data on Pre-service EFL teachers' and ELL students' attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools in English language learning procedure.

Participants
The current study consisted of 94 participants in English Language Teaching (ELT) and English Language and Literature (ELL) departments at Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat in the fall term of academic year 2021-2022. The demography of the participants was offered in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, 64.9% (f=61) of the participants were female and 35.1% (f=33) of them were male students who attended the questionnaire. In respect to their departments, 65.9% of the students were in the department of ELT and the rest of them were from the department of ELL. Their age ranges from 18 to 32. Regarding their year of study, 28.7% of the participants were 1st year, 37.2% of them were 2nd year and 34.1% were 4th year students.

Instruments
The researchers used the attitude questionnaire designed by Selevičienė & Burkšaitienė (2016) and Keleş (2013) were used for the present study to reveal students' attitudes towards Web 2.0 technology for foreign language learning. The instrument contains four sections. The first section includes background knowledge about the participants such as age, department, year of study and gender. The second part includes 19 closed-ended questions based on five-point Likert-type scale. The questions were made up of awareness (1-3), perceived usefulness (4-8), perceived ease of use (9-12), attitude (13-15), intention to use (16-17) and actual system usage (18-19) dimensions. The last part of the questionnaire contains 8 multiple choice questions related to their frequency of the usage of Web 2.0 tools. The questionnaire was evaluated by four proficient EFL instructors for validity and some revisions were made in the light of feedback received from experts. The questionnaire's Cronbach's alpha was calculated as .825 The questionnaire was divided into three sections: 1. demographic sections for respondents' background information (gender, age, department, year of study) 2. Likert scale statements (19 closed-ended items) on respondents' attitudes towards the implementation of Web 2.0 tools in language learning. 3. Multiple choice section (8 multiple choice questions) on what Web 2.0 tools they use for academic purposes.

Results
Descriptive statistics was used in order to reveal respondents' attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools in language learning. The results were offered in six dimensions of the model Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) identified by Arshad et al. (2012). The findings showed that the top-rank mean score (M=3.70, SD=1.09) was collected from the third item in which over half (61.2%) of the participants were conscious that they can learn English language using Web 2.0 tools. According to findings, a majority of participants were positive on the items regarding awareness dimension.  The results of descriptive analysis for the dimension of 'Perceived Ease of Use' showed that 62% of the participants thought that Web 2.0 technologies are easy to use which has the highest mean score (M=3.75, SD=.96) whereas 53.7 % of participants believed that learning English by the help of Web 2.0 tools is easy to use (M=3.62, SD=1.04) which signifies that although the participants find these tools easy to use, they still have problems to integrate these tools into learning English procedure. Another finding reported that over half (57.9%) of the participants indicated that these tools were considered to enhance collaboration among peers and instructors (M=3.72, SD=.92). According to the results of the dimension 'Attitude', it can be seen that 69.5% of the participants consider Web 2.0 technologies as a good strategy in learning English (M=3.96, SD=.96). Another high mean score (M=3.86, SD=.93) was for the item 13 in which 66.3% of the participants thought that Web 2.0 technology is beneficial for academic purposes. The results showed that Web 2.0 tools were valuable both for academic purposes and language learning procedure among students. The findings in respect to the fifth dimension 'Intention to use' showed that 64.2% of participants claimed that they are determined to use Web 2.0 technologies to improve their English (M=3.81, SD=1.00) whereas over half (54.8%) of the participants indicated that they will add Web 2.0 applications as another medium to learn English (M=3.57, SD=.96). Based on the results, participants plan to integrate these tools into language learning process in the future. As for the last dimension 'Actual System Usage', over half (60.1%) of the participants believed that using Web 2.0 tools can improve their language competency (M=3.79, SD=1.01). The findings illustrates that the participants have positive attitudes towards using Web 2.0 tools in their language learning process.  According to the results obtained from the correlation analysis in Table 8 in order to identify whether department and gender factor influence the attitudes towards the usage of Web 2.0 technologies for academic purposes, it can be seen that there has been a significant strong negative correlation between department and attitudes towards use of Web 2.0 tools (r=-.258, p<.05) which shows that ELT students have more positive attitudes towards Web 2.0 tools compared to ELL students. Moreover, there is almost no relationship between gender and attitudes towards the implementation of Web 2.0 tools for academic purposes (r=.090).

Discussion and Conclusion
This study investigated to reveal ELT and ELL students' attitudes towards the implementation of Web 2.0 technologies in language learning process in six dimensions on the model TAM identified by Arshad et al. (2012) and to reveal whether the department and gender factors influenced the tendency towards Web 2.0 tools for academic purposes. The study also investigated what Web 2.0 technologies ELT and ELL students use for educational and academic purposes.
The overall results of the research have shown that Web 2.0 technologies have mainly been utilized among students in order to enhance their vocabulary, listening, reading, speaking and at last writing skills respectively. Another finding was that although participants thought Web 2.0 technologies are effortless to use, only half of the participants believed that learning English through Web 2.0 tools is not complex to use which signifies that although the participants use these tools easily, they still have problems to integrate these tools into learning English procedure.
Regarding the intention dimension, participants plan to integrate these tools into language learning process in the future since over half of the participants claimed that they have a mind to use Web 2.0 technologies to develop their English. Therefore, the findings illustrated that participants know the existence of the Web 2.0 tools and they generally had a positive inclination towards using Web 2.0 tools in their language learning process. As for the second research question, according to the results of the correlation analysis to analyze whether department and gender factors influence the attitudes towards the usage of Web 2.0 technologies for academic purposes. The results give a profound strong negative correlation between department and attitudes towards use of Web 2.0 tools which signifies that ELT students have more positive tendencies towards Web 2.0 tools compared to ELL students. Moreover, gender did not influence the attitudes of ELT and ELL students.
In respect to the last research question, popular sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn were the most frequently used tools by students for academic purposes. The findings also demonstrated that knowledge sharing sites, wikis, and blogs were also most favored technologies used by ELT and ELL students respectively (Aşıksoy, 2018;Caliskan, Uzunboylu & Tugun, 2018;Sarı, 2019).
The findings of this study comply with the former research which investigated university students' attitudes towards Web 2.0 technologies in language learning process (Keleş, 2013;Arshad, A. et al., 2012;Selevičienė & Burkšaitienė, 2016;Aşıksoy, G, 2018). Selevičienė & Burkšaitienė (2016) investigated university students' attitudes towards the usage of Web 2.0 tools for learning ESP based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The results showed that although the participants all know the existence of Web 2.0 tools and consider these tools helpful for academic purposes, they do not integrate them much into learning ESP. It also demonstrated that the participants thought Web 2.0 tools could help them to enhance their ESP reading skills the most followed by ESP listening skills whereas in the present study, Web 2.0 technologies are preferred among students in order to enhance their vocabulary primarily as well as the improvement of listening skills.
The findings of the present study were also parallel with the findings of Aşıksoy's (2018) study which showed ELT students had positive attitudes towards the use of these tools in English language learning and participants claimed these tools improved their listening skills more than other skills. Parallel to this current study, another finding was social networking tools which were the most preferred tools among ELT students. The study conducted by Sari (2019) also indicated that pre-service EFL teachers were aware of the Web 2.0 tools for language learning and social networking tools were identified as one of the most frequently tools used by pre-service EFL teachers. Regarding the findings of the study conducted by Cephe & Balçıkanlı (2012) most participants consider the use of Web 2.0 technologies essential for language learning procedure been though there happen to be challenges including deficiency of technological device.
This study underlines some important pedagogical implications. As Web 2.0 technologies has an influential role in English language teaching programs, there could be special training programs for Web 2.0 technologies in the pre-and in-service teaching programs in faculties about how to integrate these tools into their language instruction in order to gain proficiency.
There were some limitations in the current study. The first limitation was the small size of the participants. The participants are from Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University ELT and ELL students. Therefore, in further studies, in order to generalize the findings, it might be better with more participants. Another limitation was that only Likert-type scale and multiple-choice test were used as instruments to obtain data from the students in the current study. Data could also be collected through interviews in further studies. Another limitation was that only two departments -ELT, ELL-participated in the study, more departments could get involved in further studies.